Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (40693)	12/6/2001 9:01:37 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I agree, it is a fundamental problem. My interpretation of Original Sin is very much restricted to the idea of moral frailty, which is indisputable. But the rest of it, especially that which seems to condemn us to Hell, doesn't, to me, make a lot of sense. Of course it doesn't make sense. The doctrine doesn't exist because it makes sense, it exists because it is necessary to the entire structure of the myth: without original sin, the drama of the crucifixion becomes pointless. Of course it also doesn't make sense that an omnipotent God would have to have someone crucified in order to redeem people, since redemption could be as easily accomplished simply by willing it. There is really not much sense in the whole story, but of course sense is not a necessary element in any mythic structure, and Christianity is as much a part of the history of human mythology as the worship of Zeus, Odin, or Ra. People don't believe because it makes sense; they believe because they want to believe.